p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CONTC No.5733 of 2025 Partha Panda …. Petitioner Mr. J. Gupta, Advocate -versus- Dr. N. Thirumala Naik, Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of S & ME Dept, Khurda & Others …. Opp.Parties Mr. U.C. Behura, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT Order No. 02. ORDER 13.02.2026 The complaint alleges non-compliance of order dated 01.08.2025, whereby complainant’s W.P.(C) No.20956 of 2025 has been disposed off in terms of Apex Court order dated 02.05.2025 passed in Civil Appeal No.5842 of 2025 arising out of SLP(C) No.28521 of 2023 between State of Odisha v. Jita Luha. 2. Learned AGA-Mr. Behura appearing for the Contemnors draws attention of the Court to the compliance affidavit dated 03.02.2026, wherein paragraphs.7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 read as under: “7. That, it is humbly submitted that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has passed order dated 02.05.2025 in Civil Appeal No.5842 of 2025 arising out of SLP(C) No.28521 of 2023 between State of Odisha and others vrs. Jita Luha and other regarding giving appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. p. 2 8. That, it is respectfully submitted that, the Govt. in School and Mass Education Department vide letter No.16029/SME, Dated 01.08.2019 allowed the benefits of Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme to the legal heirs of the deceased employees working in Fully Aided Educational Institutions and Institutions receiving Block Grant/ Grant-in-Aid(New). Copy of the letter dated 01.08.2019 of S & ME Department is annexed as Annexure-A/3. 9. That, it is humbly submitted that, the later the School and Mass Education Department vide letter No.12563/SME, Dated 09.09.2020 had decided to withdraw the extension of benefits of giving appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme to the legal heirs of the deceased employees working in Fully Aided Educational Institutions and Institutions receiving Block Grant/Grant-in-Aid(New). Copy of the letter dated 09.09.2020 of S & ME Department is annexed as Annexure-B/3. 10. That, it is humbly submitted that, after careful examination of the matter, it is observed that, Sri Ganeshananda Panda, father of the Petitioner, expired on 02.062021, i.e. after the implementation of the Government’s above withdrawal order issued by the S &ME Department regarding appointment of legal heirs of the deceased employees of Fully Aided Educational Institutions and Institutions receiving Block Grant/Grant-in-Aid (New) under R.A. Scheme. 11. That, it is humbly submitted that keeping in view of the order passed on dated 01.08.2025 of the Hon’ble Court in W.P.(C) No.20956 of 2025, this deponent has considered the case of Petitioner vide order 19.01.2026 by passing a reasoned speaking order and held that there is no scope to give appointment to the Petitioner under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme under the existing rules/guidelines of the Government in the event of withdrawal of letter dated 01.08.2019 by S & ME Department vide letter dated 09.09.2020. Copy of the Speaking Order dated 19.01.2026 is annexed herewith as Annexure-C/3. The Petitioner has also been communicated with the said order. 12. That, it is humbly submitted that this deponent has highest regard for the order(s) passed by this Hon’ble Court and never ventured to violate the order(s) of this Hon’ble Court at any point of time. The delay caused for the non-compliance of the orders of this Hon’ble Court is bonafide, unintentional and not willful. This deponent begs unconditional apology for the delay caused for compliance of the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court.” 3. Mr. Behura submits that the question of granting benefit to the complainant would arise on the principle of parity that is when some benefit is extended to the parties to the proceedings before the p. 3 Apex Court in the case mentioned above; whatever benefit that was extended to the LRs of deceased party to the Apex Court proceedings vide order/letter dated 01.08.2019 has been withdrawn by subsequent order/letter dated 09.09.2020 as has been discussed in paragraphs-8 and 9 of the above paragraph and therefore, no relief can be granted to the complainant as well. I find force in this submission. In the above circumstances, the contempt petition is disposed off accepting compliance. If there is any grievance, it is open to the complainant to work out the same elsewhere, in accordance with law and in that connection, all contentions are kept open. (Krishna Shripad Dixit) Judge Madhusmita